Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 37

The German Ideology Never Took Place

Forthcoming in History of Political Thought, early 2010. The German Ideology Never Took Place1[1] Terrell Carver The German Ideology (Die Deutsche Ideologie) by Karl Marx and Friedrich (or Frederick) Engels has a very well established scholarly and interpretive reception. However, this dates from long after the authors deaths (in 1883 and 1895, respectively), and began with the archival and editorial work of D.B. Ryazanov in the early 1920s, the initial publication of the chapter I. Feuerbach in Russian (1924) and German (1926), and the first

1[1] I am indebted throughout to Daniel Blank, PhD of the University of Bristol, for his research work,
for our conversations and discussions, and for reference access to his unpublished dissertation, The German Ideology by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: T he Political History of the Manuscript and its Published Editions. While this manuscript is referenced below as Blank, The German Ideology: Political History, I wish to acknowledge that my work on this project has been influenced at every stage by his. Errors and omissions are, of course, my own responsibility. My research work was supported by a Research Leave Scheme award from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, for which I acknowledge here and for which I express my thanks. I am also grateful for a critique of my views privately communicated by Professor Georg H. Fromm of the University of Puerto Rico, and for questions and feedback from audiences at the MEGA-Symposium in Helsinki, the Oxford Political Theory Conference, the University of California at Berkeley, The Johns Hopkins University and the Center for the Study of Marxist Social Theory at Nanjing University.

complete publication as a single volume in 1932. Since that time there have been numerous further editions and translations, the latest of which is in MarxEngels Jahrbuch 2003, edited by Inge Taubert and Hans Pelger.2[2] Currently a new edition is planned as MEGA2 I-5 in the ongoing scholarly publication of the complete works of Marx and Engels.3[3] While The German Ideology is well known to have been editorially constructed from uncorrected manuscripts, which are famously eccentric and difficult to decipher, it is worth reconsidering exactly what intellectual and political significance has been assigned to these manuscripts and exactly how their publication as The German Ideology has represented and reinforced some of these judgements. Thus there are two large-scale areas of enquiry here. The first is into the framing of the manuscript works from 1845-6 as important and worth reading at all, and the second is into their construction as a book of canonical status by Marx and Engels (only), beginning with the chapter I. Feuerbach. Most readers would take it that the German ideology4[4] obviously is a book by Marx and Engels, and that Marxism is a tradition of thought going back to Marx. With respect to both The German Ideology and Marxism, I take

2[2] For the most recent short, factual account of the history and reception of The German Ideology, see
Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels and Joseph Weydemeyer, Die Deutsche Ideologie: Artikel, Druckvorlagen, Entwrfe, Reinschriftenfragmente und Notizen zu I. Feuerbach und II. Sankt Bruno , 2 vols, Marx-EngelsJahrbuch 2003 (issued by the Internationale Marx-Engels-Stiftung, Amsterdam), ed. Inge Taubert and Hans Pelger (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2004), vol. 1, pp. *8-19*; hereafter referred to as Jahrbuch 2003. For a select bibliography of editions and translations, see Blank, The German Ideology: Political History, app. A.

3[3] For information on the Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe, second series (MEGA2), which has been in
progress since the 1970s, see http://www.bbaw.de/bbaw/Forschung/Forschungsprojekte/mega/en/Startseite#gb (accessed 9 June 2009); see also http://www.iisg.nl/~imes/intromega.php (accessed 10 June 2009).

4[4] I use The German Ideology to refer to the various editions of selected or complete
manuscript materials of 1845-6 published since 1924; on the origin of this title, see below. I use the German ideology to refer collectively to the various manuscript materials commonly assumed to be drafts for a planned work, publishable as a book; see the detailed discussion below.

the view that a deconstructive historicisation will be productive of knowledge, namely a history of the various moves through which these discursive objects were assembled such that readers particularly those attuned to political theory could acquire knowledge of them. It is not just that people might disagree about the German ideology or Marxism in one way or another, given that disagreements can be over a common object. Rather both locutions represent considerable constructive work over many years by numerous people such that a factuality has to date been produced through repetitions of scholarly activity. This has been naturalised, in a sense, in interpretive works of commentary, which are themselves in some instances canonical. Marxism as an ism-construction originates in the later 1890s and thus postdates the lives of Marx and Engels.5[5] In my view, those constructing it relied much more on Engelss work at the outset than on Marxs, for a variety of reasons. Engelss own view of Marxs thought was readily available to them in the numerous works, prefaces, introductions and editions published by Engels in the 12 years 1883-95. In that way a tradition, framed as philosophical system-building on certain self-styled materialist principles, was founded. The fit between this tradition based on Engelss works and views, on the one hand, and Marxs works and projects from 1842 until the early 1870s, on the other hand, is open to question.6[6] This article is thus intended to adjust the overall intellectual context through which The German Ideology has been viewed as a canonical volume for understanding Marx and Marxism. In particular the book as we know it opens with a philosophical chapter where puzzling but important materials are said to mark an advance in social theory, indeed the very theory that makes Marxism distinctive, the materialist conception of history. This advance is said to have taken place through Marxs engagement there with the Young Hegelian philosopher, Ludwig Feuerbach. David McLellan writes: The section of The German Ideology on Feuerbach was one of

5[5] See George Lichtheim, Marxism: An Historical and Critical Study (London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul, 1964).

6[6] See Terrell Carver, Marx and Engels: The Intellectual Relationship (Brighton:
Harvester/Wheatsheaf, 1983); see also Terrell Carver, Marx-Engels or Engels v. Marx, MEGA-Studien, 1996/2, pp. 79-85.

the most central of Marxs works. It was a tremendous achievement in view of the low level of socialist writing and thought prevalent at the time. Marx never subsequently stated his materialist conception of history at such length and in detail. It remains a masterpiece today for the cogency and clarity of its presentation.7[7] However, drawing on recent contextual research, undertaken within the framework of the MEGA2 project, I take issue with this long-standing and widely held view. To do this I embark on a deconstructive historicisation of the German ideology, showing why and how the manuscripts were written in 1845-6 and abandoned by 1847. These manuscripts were later negatively received by the few who looked back at them, beginning in the 1880s with Engels. However, in the early 1920s Ryazanov reversed these negative judgements, heralding his project to publish The German Ideology by Marx and Engels as a book with the quick publication in Russian translation of an opening chapter.8[8] In particular I subject that opening chapter I. Feuerbach the section most commonly excerpted and read today to factual scrutiny, showing that it was constructed factitiously to fill a void. This void was in a plan, synthesised from correspondence and other sources, by Ryazanov and successively modified by later editors. Those few pages have been read since the 1960s as foundational to an understanding of Marxs ideas in particular, the materialist interpretation of history and more than any other text represent a certification of him as a political philosopher. My conclusions in this article thus question the canonical status of the chapter I. Feuerbach with respect to existing interpretations of Marxs life and thought. Crucially these interpretations turn on the nature and locus of the self-clarification concerning our conception that Marx mentions

7[7] David McLellan, Karl Marx: His Life and Thought (London: Macmillan, 1973), p. 151.
See also Shlomo Avineri, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), passim.

8[8] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, pp. 8*-10*; see also Blank, The German Ideology: Political
History, ch. 3.

autobiographically in 1859. Current texts and commentary link this selfclarification directly to the The German Ideology and its opening chapter I. Feuerbach.9[9] Given the facts detailed in this article, this familiar linkage is no longer tenable. The Production of Manuscripts by Means of Polemic The first order of business is to establish the context through which the manuscript materials themselves were successively written and re-written in 1845-6. Following that it will be possible to see how subsequently they acquired the title The German Ideology in 1902, such that a book by Marx and Engels (in that order, and not by anyone else) came to be editorially constructed in the 1920s. Beginning in November 1845, Marx and Engels, as communist agitators, were working together in Brussels, and during 1846 they continued to work jointly, though sometimes by correspondence from various locations. During this period the two (in conjunction with others, including Joseph Weydemeyer and Moses Hess), planned and drafted and variously re-planned and re-drafted a number of evolving polemical works for publication, most probably in a multi-author special number resembling their preceding

9[9] Karl Marx, Preface [to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. Part One],
in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works [hereafter referred to as CW], vol. 29 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1987), p. 264. The phrase The manuscript, two large octavo volumes is identified by an editorial footnote with The German Ideology; this title does not occur in the manuscript materials, nor elsewhere in Marxs works as the title of a book; see the detailed discussion of this passage below.

German-French Annals (Deutsch-Franzsische Jahrbcher), edited with Arnold Ruge and published in 1844.10[10] Only a tiny fraction of the manuscript material of 1845-6 found its way into print in the authors lifetimes,11[11] and by early 1847 other works had overtaken these projects. Marx himself referred to these manuscript materials as Schrift (writing), Werk (work), Manuskript (manuscript) or Publication (publication) with volumes/parts/numbers (Bnde). The English translation book is tendentious.12[12] Marxs own references to these manuscript materials occur in just four surviving texts. The first two were in a subsequent but near contemporary press note in 1847 and in an item of contemporary correspondence. The third occurred somewhat later in life in 1859, when he drew attention to them in presenting a brief intellectual autobiography accompanying the first published instalment of his major lifetime project, a critical work on political economy. The fourth and last was in correspondence of 1860 relating to the published volume of the previous year. In the discussion below I take the first two references together, skip to the fourth, and then return to the third. This third

10[10] Inge Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke der Deutschen Ideologie (November 1845 bis
Juni 1846). Probleme und Ereignisse, MEGA-Studien, 1997/2, pp. 12-13, 16-20; see the detailed research on this period in Galina Golowina, Das Projekt der Vierteljahrsschri ft von 1845/1846: Zu den ursprnglichen Publikationsplnen der Manuskripte der Deutschen Ideologie, in Marx-Engels-Jahrbuch, vol. 3, ed. Institute for Marxism-Leninism of the Central Committee of the CPSU and Institute for Marxism-Leninism of the Central Committee of the SED ([East] Berlin: Dietz Verlag, 1980). pp. 26074.

11[11] Inge Taubert, Die berlieferungsgeschichte der Manuskripte der Deutschen


Ideologie und die Erstverffentlichungen in der Originalsprache, MEGA-Studien, 1997/2, pp. 32-3; see also see also Blank, The German Ideology: Political History, app. A.

12[12] See pp. 00-00 below.

reference is by far the most detailed and best known, and so for that reason warrants close examination. In the first reference, Marx wrote on 3 April 1847 from Brussels to correct press reports that were, so he says, giving a false picture of his The Poverty of Philosophy (Misre de la philosophie, 1847), just then with the publishers. He wished to dissociate himself from the view, which he had detected in the press, that he valued the work of the famous French socialist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon equally with that of the German True Socialist Karl Grn, the translator of Proudhons System of Economic Contradictions, or Philosophy of Poverty (System des contradictions conomiques, o philosophie de la misre, 2 vols, 1846). This was the widely-read work which Marx was attacking in his French-language response through satire and parody, one of the few ways through which critical politics could proceed at the time. In his press comment he emphasised the distance between Grn, on the one hand, and Proudhon and himself, on the other, in terms of ideas and influence. He did this by disparaging Grns book The Social Movement in France and Belgium (Soziale Bewegung in Frankreich und Belgien, 1845). Damning with faint praise, Marx wrote that he himself had: so little urge to acquaint the German world with the results of my studies of Herr Grns Soziale Bewegung in Frankreich und Belgien that I have permitted a fairly comprehensive review of Grns book, prepared a year ago, peacefully to sleep the sleep of the just in manuscript form, and only now that I have been challenged by our friend in Berlin [Eduard Meyen, a former associate, writing in the press TC] shall I send it to the [monthly TC] Westphlisches Dampfboot to be printed. The review forms an appendix to the book [sic TC, Marx writes Schrift] written jointly by Fr. Engels and me on the German ideology (critique of modern German philosophy as expounded by its representatives Feuerbach, B. Bauer and Stirner, and of German socialism as expounded by its various prophets).13[13]

13[13] Marx, [Declaration against Karl Grn], in CW, vol. 6 (London: Lawrence & Wishart,
1976), pp. 72 note b, 73; emphasis in original; the newspaper note had no title so the editors have assigned the one in square brackets; see also Inge Taubert, Hans Pelger, Jacques Grandjonc, Dokument: Marx Erklrung vom 3. April 1847, MEGA-Studien, 1997/2, pp. 15461. For information on the Westphlisches Dampfboot, where Marxs review appeared in August/September 1847, see CW, vol. 5 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1976), pp. 604-5, note 128; B. Bauer is distinguished from his brother Edgar; see CW, vol. 5, p. 610.

This is the origin of the title The German Ideology (and further subtitle) assigned by later editors to their editions as a single work by Marx and Engels (only)14[14] of selections from the various manuscript materials accumulated during this period, and then largely left aside by the authors. It is also the source, in conjunction with some examination of the numbering schemes extant on the manuscript pages, of the ultimate plan for a book divided into two volumes that editors of the last hand (Fassung letzter Hand)15[15] have striven to fill out.16[16]

14[14] Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke, p. 5; Jahrbuch 2003 departs somewhat from
previous practice by including Joseph Weydemeyer in the list of authors; see note 2 above; see also note 16 below.

15[15] Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke, p. 19; of the last hand is a bibliographical term
signifying the authors final intentions as recorded on a text.

16[16] This includes the projected MEGA2 vol. 1/5; see Inge Taubert, Hans Pelger, Jacques
Grandjonc, Die Konstitution von MEGA2 I/5 Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Moses Hess: Die deutsche Ideologie. Manuskripte und Drucke (November 1845 bis Juni 1846), MEGAStudien, 1997/2, pp. 49-53.

The manuscripts themselves give no title at all for the overall work,17[17] or for the planned first volume,18[18] but do record Der wahre Sozialismus (True Socialism) in conjunction with what appears to be the second (critique of German socialism according to its various prophets).19[19] At times in correspondence of 184620[20] Marx mentions two volumes (Bnde), but it is less than clear that these are volumes of a book as such, rather than numbers of a publication (Marx uses Publication as a

17[17] Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke, p. 12.

18[18] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, p. 7*.

19[19] Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke, pp. 5, 11-12; see also Taubert, Pelger, Grandjonc,
Die Konstitution von MEGA2 I/5, p. 57.

20[20] Marx to Joseph Weydemeyer, 14-16 May 1846, CW, vol. 38, pp. 41-3; Marx to Carl
Friedrich Julius Leske, 1 August 1846, CW, vol. 38, pp. 48-51.

German word twice in this connection).21[21] Moreover Marx did not always list the contents of such a publication in the same order, viz. Bauer[,] Feuerbach up to Stirner, a reversal between Bruno Bauer and Ludwig Feuerbach in the order that later editors have generally used.22[22] The manuscripts were mentioned by Marx for the fourth and last time (in a letter to J.M. Weber of 3 March 1860)23[23] as a work [Werk] in two

21[21] Taubert, Pelger, Grandjonc, Die Konstitution von MEGA2 1/5, p. 53.

22[22] Taubert, Pelger, Grandjonc, Die Konstitution von MEGA2 I/5, p. 53. Bauer[,]
Feuerbach up to Stirner occurs in Marx to Leske, 1 August 1846, though not in the English text (see note 20 above; my thanks to Sun Leqiang, PhD student of Nanjing University, for pointing this out). The context suggests that Marx crossed out this descriptive phrase so as not to have to write a similar one for German socialism (emphasis in original); see the full text with var iants in MEGA2 III/2, pp. 23, 622; cf. the English text without variants in CW, vol. 38, p. 50. Feuerbach, B. Bauer and Stirner occurs in the press note dated 3 April 1847 discussed above.

23[23] CW, vol. 41, pp. 92-104.

volumes on latter-day German philosophy and socialism.24[24] Engels referred to the manuscripts a number of times without mentioning either a twovolume structure or an overall title.25[25] The primary, and probably first, association of these manuscripts with the overall title The German Ideology was by Franz Mehring in his 1902 selection of materials from Marxs literary legacy (Nachlass).26[26] This was then amplified by him for his biography, Karl Marx: The Story of His Life (Karl Marx: Geschichte seines Lebens), originally published in 1918, the first full-length study and very widely read. In that book The German Ideology appears as a chapter sub-heading and the two big volumes are given the now familiar title.27[27] The third time that Marx discusses the German ideology, however, is

24[24] Tauber, Pelger, Grandjonc, Die Konstitution von MEGA2 I/5, p. 54; CW, vol. 41
(London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1985), p. 101.

25[25] Taubert, Pelger, Grandjonc, Konstitution von MEGA2 I/5, p. 54.

26[26] Blank, The German Ideology: Political History, which references Mehrings

Aus dem literarischen Nachlass von Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels und Ferdinand Lassalle: Gesammelte Schriften von Karl Marx und Friedrich Engels 18411850, vol. 2, July 1844 to November 1847 (Stuttgart: Dietz), p. 346.

27[27] Franz Mehring, Karl Marx; TheStory of His Life, trans. Edward Fitzgerald (London:
George Allen & Unwin, 1936, 3rd imp. 1951), pp. 109-11.

by far the most important. He looked back to his largely unpublished manuscript (Manuskript) of 1845-6 in his brief autobiographical introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (Zur Kritik der politischen konomie, 1859).28[28] In that Preface (Vorwort) he formulated a guide to the intellectual content of his work in order to help his readers along. He began this account with his stint as editor of the liberal paper Rheinische Zeitung in Cologne in 1842-3, saying: I first found myself in the embarrassing position of having to discuss what is known as material interests [regarding TC] thefts of wood and the division of landed property the condition of the Mosel peasantry the debates on free trade and protective tariffs [which TC] caused me in the first instance to turn my attention to economic questions. On the other hand, at that time when good intentions to push forward often took the place of factual knowledge, an echo of French socialism and communism, slightly tinged by philosophy, was noticeable in the Rheinische Zeitung. I objected to this dilettantism, but at the same time frankly admitted that my previous studies did not allow me to express any opinion on the content of the French theories. The first work which I undertook to dispel the doubts assailing me was a critical re-examination of the Hegelian philosophy of

28[28] CW, vol. 29, pp. 257-417.

law29[29]; the introduction30[30] to this work being published in the Deutsch-Franzsische Jahrbcher issued in Paris in 1844.31[31] After that point in his brief autobiography Marx began to sketch out his guide (Leitfaden)32[32] in a very long paragraph, noting at the end that his conclusion was: that neither legal relations nor political forms could be comprehended whether by themselves or on the basis of so-called general development of the human mind, but that on the contrary they originate in the material conditions of life, the totality of which Hegel, following the example of English and French thinkers of the eighteenth century, embraces within the term civil society; that the anatomy of this civil

29[29] The manuscript Contribution to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Law, first
published in 1927; CW, vol. 3 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1975), pp. 3-129.

30[30] Contribution to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Law: Introduction (1844), CW,
vol. 3, pp. 175-87.

31[31] Marx, Preface, CW, vol. 29, pp. 261-2.

32[32] CW, vol. 29, p. 262 reads guiding principle; cf. Karl Marx, Preface to A
Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, in Karl Marx, Later Political Writings, ed. and trans. Terrell Carver (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), p. 159, which reads guide.

society, however, has to be sought in political economy. The study of this, which I began in Paris, I continued in Brussels, where I moved [on 11 January 1845 TC]33[33] owing to an expulsion order issued by M. Guizot [government minister to King Louis Philippe of the French].34[34] Marxs discussion then advances to a general conclusion [Das allgemeine Resultat] which, once reached, became the guide [or more literally guiding thread TC] of my studies.35[35] This long paragraph contained material highlighted by Engels in his subsequent 1859 review of Marxs work.36[36] However, further on in his autobiographical narrative of 1859, Marx returned to the Brussels years when he introduced readers to his then collaborator

33[33] Marx, Preface, CW, vol. 29, p. 262, note d.

34[34] Marx, Preface, CW, vol. 29, p. 262.

35[35] Marx, Preface, CW, vol. 29, p. 262.

36[36] Frederick Engels, Karl Marx: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy,
CW, vol. 16 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1980), pp. 465-77; for an analysis and discussion of Engelss review, see Terrell Carver, Engels (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 3744.

Frederick Engels [who TC] arrived by another road (compare his Condition of the Working-Class in England)37[37] at the same result as I, and when in the spring of 1845 he too came to live in Brussels, we decided to set forth together our conception [Ansicht] as opposed to the ideological one of German philosophy, in fact to settle accounts with our former philosophical conscience [Gewissen]. The intention was carried out in the form of a critique of post-Hegelian philosophy. The manuscript, two large octavo volumes [Oktavbnde],38[38] had long ago reached the publishers in Westphalia when we were informed that owing to changed circumstances it could not be printed. We abandoned the manuscript to the gnawing criticism of the mice all the more willingly since we had achieved our main purpose self-

37[37] CW, vol. 4 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1975), pp. 295-583.

38[38] No trace of any temporary binding to collect draft-material into convenient volumes
survives; inspection of original mss and queries to Ursula Balzer at the International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, 15 March 2007; I am responding here to a point raised in Georg H. Fromm, Remarks on T. Carvers Proposals for a Critical Edition of The German Ideology, pp. 7-8, unpublished mss, privately communicated.

clarification.39[39] At this point the editors of CW refer the reader to The German Ideology,40[40] published as a book by Marx and Engels (only), such as various editors have produced since the first complete publication of this material in volume format in 1932.41[41] The Chapter I. Feuerbach However, this complete edition was preceded by the publication of the chapter I. Feuerbach by an editorial team headed by Ryazanov at the Marx -

39[39] Marx, Preface, CW, vol. 29, p. 264.

40[40] Marx, Preface, CW, vol. 29, p. 264, n. b; for The German Ideology, see CW, vol. 5,
pp. 19-539,

41[41] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Die Deutsche Ideologie, in Marx-EngelsGesamtausgabe, Abt. 1, Bd 5, ed. V.V. Adoratskii (Berlin, Marx-Engels-Verlag, 1932); series now generally referred to as MEGA1.

Engels-Institute in Moscow, first in Russian translation in 1924,42[42] and then in German in 1926. This latter publication was in the Marx-Engels-Archiv, a joint venture between German socialists and Russian bolsheviks.43[43] It is this short work that has come to be associated with the self-clarification, the settling of accounts with German philosophers (an unwanted conscience for Marx and Engels),44[44] and with the wider political movements and philosophical enquiries in the twentieth century through which the works (variously) of Marx and Engels have been interpreted as materials doctrinal to Marxism. In particular, the manuscript materials that went into the editorially constructed opening chapter I. Feuerbach of the editorially constructed book The German Ideology, over time and in various ways, have come to be one of the most influential texts of twentieth-century philosophy. The editors of the Jahrbuch 2003 edition of these manuscript materials are now in no doubt that they do not include a draft of a chapter I.

42[42] See Harry Waton, Preface, The Marxist (New York), July 1926, p. 240. Waton
translated Ryazanovs chapter I. Feuerbach from Russian into English under the title German Ideology (The Materialist Conception of History), pp. 245 -303, and added an Analysis and Criticism of the Materialist Conception of History, pp. 307 -33. Ryazanovs editorial work is discussed in Blank, The German Ideology: Political History, ch. 3, where it is argued that MEGA1 1/5, published under Adoratskiis editorship, largely reproduces his predecessors work.

43[43] Taubert, Die berlieferungsgeschichte der Manuskripte, pp. 44-6.

44[44] Marx, Preface, CW, vol. 29, p. 264.

Feuerbach, even though one was evidently planned by Marx and Engels from the spring of 1846, some time after most of the German ideology manuscripts were actually written.45[45] The manuscript materials that were organised by Ryazanov and subsequent editors in a chapter-like way have been re-presented by the Jahrbuch 2003 editors rather as independent sequences of manuscript text of the last hand, ordered in a manner that reflects both chronological and thematic considerations. These sequences, known since 1924 as I. Feuerbach, were not in fact part of the materials actually prepared by Marx, Engels and Weydemeyer for publication in April and June 1846, and so were never sent by them to any publishers at all.46[46] Later in life, when introducing his pamphlet work Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (Ludwig Feuerbach und der Ausgang der klassischen deutschen Philosophie, 1888), Engels remarked that: I have once again ferreted out and looked over the old manuscript of 1845-6. The section dealing with Feuerbach is not completed. The finished portion consists of an exposition of the materialist conception of history which proves only how incomplete our knowledge of economic history still was at that time. It contains no criticism of Feuerbachs doctrine itself; for the present purpose, therefore, it was useless. On the other hand, in an old notebook of Marxs I have found the eleven theses on Feuerbach These are notes hurriedly scribbled

45[45] Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke, p. 16; Taubert, Pelger, Grandjonc, Die
Konstitution von MEGA2 I/5, pp. 49, 55.

46[46] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, p. 7*; Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke, p. 10; Taubert,
Pelger, Grandjonc, Die Konstitution von MEGA2 I/5 p. 53.

down for later elaboration, absolutely not intended for publication, but invaluable as the first document in which is deposited the brilliant germ of the new world outlook.47[47] Possibly at this point, or possibly earlier when listing the Nachlass after Marxs death,48[48] Engels wrote I. Feuerbach: Gegensatz von materialistischer & idealistischer Anschauung [I. Feuerbach: Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlooks]49[49] in pencil on a page of the

47[47] CW, vol. 26 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1990), p. 520; for Marxs Theses on
Feuerbach see CW, vol. 5, pp. 3-5; these Theses pre-date the German ideology sequence of manuscript writings and are contained, as Engels says, in a separate notebook. Contrary to editorial opinion summarised in CW, vol. 5, pp. XIV, 585 note 1, these Theses were not part of the German ideology project as initially conceived, since the original targets in that manuscript sequence were Bruno Bauer and then Stirner and later others, such as Grn, and only eventually, Feuerbach; Taubert, Pelger, Grandjonc, Konstitution von MEGA 2 I/5, p. 55; Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, pp. 6*-7*; cf. McLellan, Karl Marx, p. 143, and Golowina, Das Projekt.

48[48] Taubert, Die berlieferungs der Manuskripte, p. 34.

49[49] The usual English translation of this phrase is Outlooks, whereas Anschauung is
singular.

manuscript.50[50] In his Preface to his pamphlet Ludwig Feuerbach he seems to give only an ambiguous assurance that those incomplete manuscript pages on what he termed the materialist conception of history51[51] represent something that would have gone into a critique of Feuerbach, had the two completed their apparent plan of spring 1846 to write one. In any case it is not clear at all exactly which manuscript pages Engels was examining in the late 1880s (other than the one on which he made his note).52[52] The manuscript pages that were arranged as the chapter I. Feuerbach by later editors (and variously re-arranged, along with other materials), comprise several distinct runs of pages and fragments that are in fact discontinuous with each other.53[53] Nonetheless Engelss broad point is true enough none of these materials contains any sustained critique of Feuerbach, either of the kind that

50[50] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, p. 100.

51[51] Engels, Karl Marx. A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, CW, vol. 16,
p. 469.

52[52] Taubert, Die berlieferungsgeschichte der Manuskripte, p. 34.

53[53] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, p. 8*; see also Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke, p. 23; and
Taubert, Pelger, Grandjonc, Konstitution von MEGA2 I/5, pp. 51-2; see the detailed discussion below.

Engels was interested in conducting retrospectively in the late 1880s (when the socialist paper Die Zeit asked him to review C.N. Starckes new book on the philosopher),54[54] or of some other kind within the context of the political interventions in which the two were engaged in France, Belgium and Germany in late 1845 and the first half of 1846 (and, of course, later on during 1847 and into the revolutionary period of 1848). Following the general outline of Engelss discussion, Mehring, in his Marx-biography of 1918, set out what became the standard interpretive terms for commentary on The German Ideology as a supposed book of which the manuscripts of 1845-6 were presumed to be drafts in some fairly obvious sense: The work is a still more discursive super-polemic than The Holy Family55[55] even in its most arid chapters, and the oases in the desert are still more rare, though they are by no means entirely absent, whilst even when dialectical trenchancy does show itself it soon degenerates into hair-splitting and quibbling, some of it of a rather puerile character [Mehring then compares Marx and Engelss very small circle with that of Shakespeare {! TC} and his dramatic contemporaries] Something of the sort is probably the explanation of the tone which Marx and Engels consciously or unconsciously adopted when dealing with Bauer and Stirner and others of their old companions in the art of purely intellectual gymnastics. What they had to say about

54[54] Ludwig Feuerbach (Stuttgart: F. Enke, 1885).

55[55] Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx, Die heilige Familie oder Kritik der kritischen Kritik:
Gegen Bruno Bauer und Consorten (Frankfurt a. M.: Literarische Anstalt (J. Rtten), 1845); see CW 4 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1975), pp. 5-211. The German ideology manuscript materials (end November/beginning of December 1845 and on through 1846) were at the outset effectively a continuation of the authors engagement in The Holy Family with a critique of post-Hegelian philosophical politics; Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1 p. 6*.

Feuerbach would have been much more interesting because it would have been something more than purely negative criticism, but unfortunately this part of the work was never completed.56[56] Mehring thus established a very clear break between the presumed (but apparently non-existent) chapter I. Feuerbach and the fair copy superpolemic manuscript materials ultimately left aside in 1847. The incomplete manuscript pages on the materialist conception of history which Engels was apparently examining when searching for a critique of Feuerbach (and not finding it) were though Engels does not say it themselves discontinuous extractions from the super-polemical manuscript materials about which Mehring was so dismissive.57[57] As mentioned above, in late 1845 and very early 1846 Marx and Engels were working on polemical critiques of Bruno Bauer, a former intellectual associate of Marxs. Bauer had concerned himself in a recently published article (Charakteristik Ludwig Feuerbachs)58[58] with the political implications of Feuerbachs philosophy, and very briefly with the recently

56[56] Mehring, Karl Marx, pp. 110-11.

57[57] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 2, pp. 178-80, 304; Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke, pp. 23 -4.

58[58] Wigandsvierteljahrschrift, vol. 3 (1845); Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 2, p. 163.

published work by Engels and Marx, The Holy Family, which had been critical of him.59[59] One short critique of Bauer (dated 20 November 1845) was published anonymously in a periodical edited by Hess;60[60] the other critique was begun shortly thereafter, though never published. The two authors seem to have retained some printers sheets61[61] from the latter, numbered by Engels, whereas other printers sheets from this work are not preserved. The exact reason for preserving certain sheets is not obvious, but later editorial

59[59] Taubert, Pelger, Grandjonc, Die Konstitution von MEGA2 I/5, p. 49.

60[60] Karl Marx, [Gegen Bruno Bauer], Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, pp. 3-5; vol. 2, pp. 157-8;
published in English translation as Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, [A Reply to Bruno Bauers Anti-Critique], CW, vol. 5, pp. 15-18; the editors of Jahrbuch 2003 trace the assignment of authorship of this work originally to Engels (by his biographer Gustav Mayer), then to Marx and Engels (in MEGA1), but argue themselves for Marx alone; vol. 2, p. 157.

61[61] These are Bogen, each containing four manuscript pages (Seite); this particular
sequence is actually somewhat defective, in that it consists of two manuscript pages from printers sheet 1, and then of printers sheets 6 to 11, each containing 4 manuscript pages; Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 2, pp. 172, 178.

supposition has generally been that they were retained because of their possible relevance for a subsequent Feuerbach-critique.62[62] They are apparently divided up with the words Feuerbach, History, and Bauer.63[63] Some sections of text on these pages were subsequently marked as deleted because they had been copied out again for insertion into the subsequent fair copy when Marx and Engels started their critique of Bauer afresh. This eventually became the critique Saint Bruno,64[64] which is extant in fair copy manuscript and

62[62] See Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke, p. 21, where she argues that Marx and
Engelss draft critique of Bauer followed the various divisions of Bauers original article, and that the contents of the extracted material on printers sheets 6 to 11 has its origin in Bauers discussion of Feuerbachs materialism.

63[63] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, pp. 168, 172-3; Daniel Blank (personal conversation, 23 May
2007) has noted that History never appears in later editorial chapter plans as an independent item, and there are of course similar notes made on the text (such as Religions, Sismondi, Hegel etc.) which do not figure in these thematic discussions either; see Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, pp. 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 18, 73, 88, and passim; the Jahrbuch 2003 editors refer to these manuscript pages, after Marx had later paginated them 1) to 29), as Feuerbach and History [Feuerbach und Geschichte]; vol. 2, p. 168.

64[64] Ordered by Marx and Engels firstly as I. Saint Bruno, and then later as II. Saint
Bruno, as the authors changed their plans in order to subject further writers to critique; Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke, pp. 21 -2.

appears in volume I of complete editions of The German Ideology as II. Saint Bruno.65[65] At around the same time in early 1846 Marx and Engels were also working on a critique of Max Stirner, who had published a lengthy critique of Hegel and various Young Hegelians, including Bauer and Feuerbach, under the title The Ego and Its Own [Der Einzige und sein Eigentum, 1844]).66[66] Marx and Engelss critique, as it eventually developed, was divided into two sections (an old testament for Saint Max, and a new testament). The printers sheets of this fair copy manuscript were again numbered by Engels, and two sequences, discontinuous with each other, were evidently extracted (numbers 20-21 from the old testament, and 84-92 from the new testament). In the first sequence there was again a process of marked deletions where Weydemeyer had copied out material for use in another fair copy manuscript. In the second, a run of printers sheets was set aside, and the fair copy begun again on the same subject but with wholly altered text, suggesting that the content was for some reason unsuitable.67[67] The so-called main manuscript of the so-called Feuerbach chapter thus derives from three discontinous runs of printers sheets: one from an early draft critique of Bauer, and two from the fair copy of a two-part critique of Stirner (and each from a different part of that critique).

65[65] Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke, pp. 21-5; Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 2, pp. 163-70, 1723, 337-8.

66[66] Ed. David Leopold (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); see Jahrbuch
2003, vol. 2, p. 328; cf. McLellan, Karl Marx, p. 143.

67[67] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 2, pp. 173-5; this fair copy critique appears in Volume I of most
editions of The German Ideology as III. Saint Max.

However, the question that now arises is, were Marx and Engels assembling a Feuerbach-chapter (given that Marx later renumbered these three sequences himself in a continuous series),68[68] or were they, while working on their fair copy critiques of Bauer and Stirner, merely preserving some materials that might prove useful later in composing a Feuerbach-critique such as they were planning? The latter seems more likely, especially since there are three other very short, quite separate opening salvos specifically on Feuerbach. These fragments appear to inaugurate this process of beginning a Feuerbach-critique in the summer of 1846.69[69] The process of composition seems to have got no further after that, and to have produced no extensive reference back to the so-called Feuerbach materials amongst those eventually left aside, other than some very brief notes appended on the last page, which do not mention Feuerbach at all.70[70] What is crucial then is that the three parts of the so-called main manuscript (as through-numbered by Marx), which has formed the core of the so-called Feuerbach chapter in successive editions, are not only discontinuous with each other, but that all three runs of printers sheets derive from Marx and Engelss critiques of Bauer and Stirner. These extractions from manuscript

68[68] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 2, p. 163; Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke, pp. 13 -14, 23-4;
Taubert, Pelger, Grandjonc, Die Konstitution von MEGA2 I/5, pp. 51-2.

69[69] For these three texts, see Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, pp. 104-10; for dating, see vol. 2, pp.
300, 308, 315; these three short texts in rough draft are the original source for I. Feuerbach as the numbered chapter heading within Marx and Engelss plans of 1846 for a sequence of German ideology critiques. In most editions of The German Ideology they are editorially amalgamated and then incorporated into the text of I. Feuerbach as a single Preface (Vorrede).

70[70] Taubert, Pelger, Grandjonc, Die Konstitution von MEGA2 I/5, p. 52; Jahrbuch 2003,
vol. 1, pp. 99-100.

printers sheets are thus already at a considerable remove from a direct critique of Feuerbach such as Marx and Engels were apparently planning to write later on in 1846, but never did. Why then the intense editorial determination to produce a Feuerbach chapter, or at least to order these materials into that position, as happens in effect even in Jahrbuch 2003? Had the various parties involved in 1845-6 actually obtained a publisher, and had they completed their latest scheme in full fair copy, the rough-draft and extracted character of the manuscript pages that have gone into a chapter I. Feuerbach would have been readily visible to later scholars and easily acknowledged (if indeed such rough manuscript pages had been preserved, which was not often the case). The German ideology polemic, variously planned by Marx, Engels and others, has not yet been fully contextualised, precisely because textual scholarship and scholarly commentary have been teleologically focused on an outcome to which the manuscript materials were presumed for reasons I investigate below to have been leading. As indicated above, the manuscripts went through a number of substantial revisions by the authors, and all the manuscript materials are therefore a collection of starts, some of which are quite fragmentary, some of which are extractions from longer sequences of printers sheets, and some of which are fair copy (but of exactly what?). This means that a process of fitting all the surviving materials together into a book-length scheme authored by Marx and Engels alone is factitious. In the absence, then, of a finished product authorially titled and specifically ordered as fair copy and/or published text, the editorial urge to construct a publishable book by Marx and Engels (only), and in particular its supposedly crucial opening chapter, has nonetheless been as overwhelming as it has been misplaced. The process began with Ryazanov, who introduced his work on these manuscripts by abbreviating Engelss account even more than Mehring had done, evidently rejecting Engelss and Mehrings shared conclusion about their irrelevance to a Feuerbach-critique. Ryazanov thus communicated through his work the impression that some manuscript pages were in fact drafts of a chapter I. Feuerbach, however incomplete and discontinuous they might be. The chapter was assembled and published in German in 1926,71[71] and from that point on, scholarship on the German ideology has generated commentaries on how to present it as a book (or something very like a book), by Marx and Engels alone. In particular there has been intense effort expended

71[71] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, pp. 8*-11*.

on exactly which materials, and in exactly what order, a crucial opening chapter I. Feuerbach (or Feuerbach and History, as in Jahrbuch 2003) could be constituted.72[72] This opening chapter was so crucial for Ryazanov and other theoretically-minded Marxists of the time because it was presumed to be the opening gambit in a work of self-clarification by Marx and Engels as lifelong partners in relation to a rival philosophical school (namely idealism, as opposed to materialism); crucial because in 1888 Engels had identified Feuerbach (and the earlier, and physically separate, Theses on Feuerbach by Marx) as supremely important for a philosophical understanding of their conception, termed materialist by Engels73[73]; and crucial because by the 1920s the Marxist tradition of scholarly enquiry and philosophical debate on such issues had become well established. This was through the work of Eduard Bernstein, Karl Kautsky and G.V. Plekhanov, to name but a few, not excepting the even more politicised interest in V.I. Lenins Materialism and EmpirioCriticism (1909), especially after the bolshevik revolution. Ryazanov was also battling for scarce resources for his scholarly projects, so the discovery of a manuscript that could be editorially linked with the defining principles of Marxism was of obvious strategic utility.74[74] The editors of the Jahrbuch 2003 edition declare that they are breaking,

72[72] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, pp. V, 8*-15*.

73[73] Engels does this in his 1859 review, CW, vol. 16, pp. 465-77; see Carver, Engels, p. 38;
see also note 36 above.

74[74] This discovery was vigorously contested by Gustav Mayer at the time; see Blank,
The German Ideology: Political History, ch. 3.

in principle with this constructionist approach, announcing that their text will be edited as Marx and Engels left it and therefore as text-instances (Textzeugen).75[75] The editors are at considerable pains to justify their ordering of these text instances according to a systematic structure, rather than according to an order based on strict chronology, which would contradict this, and would include other materials. Moreover they apply their hybrid reasoning to a grouping of manuscripts from the period which they consider to be authorially formative for a book The German Ideology, albeit newly subtitled Manuskripte und Drucke (November 1845 to June 1846), and with the inclusion of Weydemeyer as an author. They include some 13 text instances separately listed but recognisably tracing a structure laboriously deduced by them from fragmentary comments about plans and incomplete achievements, much as previous editors have done.76[76] There is thus not so much distance between Jahrbuch 2003 and earlier editions as is claimed by the editors of the former. Moreover the factual research presented there and in allied MEGA2 research, in my view, has destroyed the case for publishing not just a chapter I. Feuerbach in any form, but also a volume of German ideology manuscripts as a work of the last hand. Last Hand(s)? Having undertaken a historical examination of the framing of the manuscript materials of 1845-6 as crucially significant, and of their factitious construction as a book The German Ideology with an opening chapter I. Feuerbach, I turn briefly to strategies for reframing and republication. This discussion requires some consideration of methodological principles relating to joint authorship, namely that of Marx and Engels in their work on the manuscript materials of 1845-6, and of bibliographical principles, namely the presumption that the reader wants to view the text of the last hand. In almost all commentary since Marxs death, and following on from Engelss lead as the first biographer of the Marx-Engels relationship, the two authors are generally treated, from late 1844 onwards, as continuous

75[75] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, p. 7*; Taubert, Pelger, Grandjonc, Die Konstitution von
MEGA2 I/5, p. 50.

76[76] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, pp. 11*-15*; Taubert, Manuskripte und Drucke, pp. 13-25;
Taubert, Pelger, Grandjonc, Die Konstitution von MEGA2 I/5, pp. 49, 54-5.

collaborators who are presumed to agree with each others ideas and texts (unless there is explicit evidence to the contrary), to complement each other in their works when dealing with similar subjects, and to supplement each others works when dealing with different subjects.77[77] I take a different methodological approach and jettison this set of presumptions, by arguing instead that agreement or disagreement will only be visible if the two are presumed to be different individuals, each with his own intellect. This seems to me to be the only position that responsible scholars can adopt, so that questions will not be begged, nor evidence (one way or the other) neglected or overlooked. Readers may then draw their own conclusions about exactly what is going on between the two at any given point. However, it should also be noted here that commentary on The German Ideology since the 1920s has generally presumed as fact what Gustav Mayer put forward as a speculative view about the way the two were working: Engels wrote more legibly, he was faster and more precise, and was therefore always prepared to put on paper passages which he and Marx had sketched out together. Other passages, which they had already talked through beforehand, Marx will perhaps [vielleicht my emphasis TC] have dictated to his pen.78[78] In 1921 Mayer was the first to publish fragments of the German ideology manuscripts, albeit from the super-polemical sections not included in anyones chapter I. Feuerbach. Rather against the interpretive

77[77] Carver, Marx and Engels: Intellectual Relationship, pp. xi-xv; Carver, Marx-Engels
or Engels v. Marx, pp. 79-85; cf. McLellan, Karl Marx, pp. 130-2.

78[78] Blank, The German Ideology: Political History, which cites Gustav Mayer, Das
Leipziger Konzil, Archiv fr Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik, vol. 47 (1921), p. 776; my translation.

speculations quoted above, these were assigned authorially to Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx.79[79] Almost all pages of the manuscript materials from the German ideology period are in fact in Engelss hand, with Marx making comments, corrections, insertions and additions in his own hand from time to time. Mayer, of course, was Engelss first biographer,80[80] and had a stake in his subjects reputation and standing within the Marxist movement and the wider world. In its transcriptions Jahrbuch 2003 distinguishes Marxs hand from Engelss by using a superscript m, but does this only in the textual variants recorded in line-by-line lists in volume 2, Apparat (apparatus criticus). This is necessarily separate from volume 1 containing the transcribed text, as dictated by the methodology of the last hand.81[81] The transcribed text thus appears in volume 1 as a smooth text of a single (albeit in some putative sense

79[79] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, p. 8*.

80[80] Friedrich Engels, vol. 1, 2nd edn (Berlin, 1920), vol. 2 (The Hague, 1934).

81[81] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 1, p. 23*.

joint) authorial hand. Unlike Ryazanovs original complete version, where variants are listed in footnotes on the page,82[82] and unlike Wataru Hiromatsus edition of 1974,83[83] where variants are included (using various codes) in the text itself, Jahrbuch 2003 continues the otherwise common yet scientific practice of making it quite difficult for readers to identify the two separate hands involved.84[84] In the case of one very famous passage, I have previously argued that this practice of producing a smooth text occludes actual debates between the two authors, and makes it easy for even experienced commentators to produce incorrect or at least highly contestable interpretations.85[85] The Bogen, that is, printers sheets, on which most manuscript pages were written, are crucial to the numbering schemes which divide editorial

82[82] MEGA1 1/5.

83[83] Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Die Deutsche Ideologie: Neuverffentlichung des
Abschnittes 1 des Bandes 1 mit Text-Kritischen Anmerkungen, ed. Wataru Hiromatsu (Tokyo: Kawadashobo-Shinsa, 1974).

84[84] See the discussion of these different modes of presentation in Blank, The German
Ideology: Political History, ch. 3.

85[85] See Terrell Carver, Communism for Critical Critics? A New Look at The German
Ideology, History of Political Thought, vol. 9, no. 1 (1988), pp. 129-36; see also Terrell Carver, The Postmodern Marx (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998), pp. 98-107.

presentation of the last hand from alternative modes of presentation. The Bogen format is not particularly visible from photocopies and photographs of single pages, and is perhaps most easily explained as a kind of greeting card or simple folder format, formed from a large sheet of paper folded once. What you see then is a recto or first page with a fold on the left; you open out the fold and see two pages (second page and third page) with a verso on the left and another recto on the right; you then turn over the right-hand recto, and you see its verso, with the fold now on the right. The individual pages (thus four per printers sheet) are very approximately A4 in size, and in most cases the fold and folded-over condition survive, though in some instances the fold has deteriorated into a tear and the resulting two pages (recto/verso) survive separately. At some, probably early stage of their work, Engels himself numbered each printers sheet in arabic numerals, and it is his sequencing which presumably reflects a rough chronological order of composition.86[86] All editions, including Jahrbuch 2003, follow Marxs later numbering of manuscript pages per printers sheet. This was because Marx was renumbering page-remnants per printers sheet, given that he and Engels had evidently decided to have some materials on some manuscript pages (in some cases whole manuscript pages) copied afresh and put back into a fair copy of their redrafted Bauer-critique and Stirner-critique. This was presumably because the extracted Bogen contained material that was mostly (but not wholly) unwanted for the polemical plans of the moment. In common with other editions Jahrbuch 2003 omits these copied out sections from their reproduction of the manuscript pages that were counted as contributions to the chapter I. Feuerbach (or text-instances in a systematic structure) such as various editors have been constructing since 1924. Jahrbuch 2003, however, uniquely reproduces these copied out sections separately in vol. 2, with a diagrammatic visual indication where on each original manuscript page of each Bogen they would have sat.87[87] Obviously this is an improvement in terms of making information

86[86] Marx and Engels may, of course, have composed some passages out of sequence;
Jahrbuch 2003 records some editorial inferences about this with reference to particular passages.

87[87] Jahrbuch 2003, vol. 2, pp. 178-211

available to readers, but it raises an acute question concerning the methodology of the last hand. Are readers necessarily interested in the final state of the text as it was abandoned by the authors? The German ideology manuscripts as a whole were never prepared by them for submission to a publisher as a distinct intellectual and commercial entity. Or are readers perhaps more interested in the state of the text as the authors were composing it for the different and overlapping projects on which they were working successively during this period? If the latter, then there is a point to restoring the copied out sections to the actual pages presented to the reader, who would be interested in following the thoughts of the authors as they put pen to paper (rather than in looking in a separate volume for a fragment of text truncated for what are now extraneous reasons). Indeed this line of thinking argues for a variant-rich and contextual approach to the manuscript materials, putting as much information as possible on the actual printed page88[88] such that successive processes of (re)composition can be reproduced. In that way readers would follow the compositional thought-process as the authors were working on pages 1/2/3/4 per printers sheet, in the sequence of printers sheets as numbered by Engels, whatever polemic was under construction at the time of writing. This presentation would therefore catch the compositional process as the authors wrestled with their ideas. Drafts for published works as rough as this are rarely preserved, since most authors are required by publishers to send fair copy. Arguably a mode of presentation alternative to the smooth text of the last hand, as employed throughout the MEGA2 project as a matter of principle, would lead readers in this particular case into the laboratory where Marx and Engels were working during a formative period in their intellectual development. In the course of drafting successive polemical works, the authors developed some of the ideas that Marx counted, albeit enigmatically, as self-clarification. However, if we follow Marxs autobiographical account of this period 1843-7 as a continuous discussion and if we read it independently of Ryazanovs startling reevaluation of the otherwise quite disparaged German ideology manuscripts we now see that the manuscripts of 1845-6 represent a continuation of the jointly published polemics of The Holy Family, which were directed towards a German audience of radical intellectuals, and also a precursor to Marxs foray into the world of French socialism in The Poverty of Philosophy, where he was

88[88] The International Institute for Historical Research and the Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe
project are jointly planning to present digital facsimile images of the actual pages of the German ideology manuscripts rather than typographical transcriptions on the internet; personal conversation with U. Balzer, International Institute of Social History, Amsterdam, 15 March 2007.

trying to bring the new conception to a wider public. Conclusions While texts written before or after the manuscript polemics of late 1845 to mid-1846 record and discuss the crucial insights of the new conception of human life, history and the future that Marx and Engels were developing, the precise moment of self-clarification, and its precise terms, have always proved elusive. The German ideology manuscripts, as Marx says,89[89] were part of this process. But the factitious chapter I. Feuerbach of the twovolume book The German Ideology, as I have shown above, was not. The broader project in Marxism of framing the new conception of society, history and politics as a philosophy, crucially resting on a critique of Feuerbach and Hegel, is itself questionable. Ryazanovs chapter I. Feuerbach of 1924 was touted as a solution to the problem of what exactly in philosophical terms Marxs new conception actually was. Even if this is a valid problem, and even if there is a solution to be found, my conclusion is that the manuscript materials used to construct the chapter I. Feuerbach are of interest not as a text of the last hand but as a rare record of a compositional process. This can be explored in relation to any number of questions, not least how exactly Marx and Engels were learning to think as they did. It follows that future editions of the successive manuscript polemics against the German ideology should proceed on this basis.

* Terrell Carver

89[89] Marx, Preface, CW, vol. 29, pp. 262, 264.

Career
After receiving his B.A. from Columbia University in 1968, Carver went on to study in England. After finishing his BPhil (1970) and DPhil (1975) at Oxford University, he worked as a lecturer at the University of Liverpool between 1974 and 1979. In 1980 he moved to the University of Bristol where he was a Lecturer until 1990, when he became a Reader. In 1985/86 he was Visiting Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University. In 1991 he was both a Visiting Fellow at The Research School of Social Sciences of the Australian National University and also at the Centre for Asian and Pacific Studies, Seikei University, Tokyo. In 1995 Carver was appointed Professor of Political Theory at the Department of Politics at the University of Bristol. Carver has also been Visiting Fellow sponsored by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Tokyo/Kyoto, in 1999; a Visiting Professor at Pitzer College of the Claremont Colleges in 2003; and Visiting Professor at Senshu University, Tokyo, in 2006.

Research interests
Carver is a political theorist taking a textual, hermeneutic and postmodern approach to classic texts and problems. His longstanding interest is in analysis and translation of works by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and the relation of those studies to Marxism and the Marxist tradition in social thought and methodology of the social sciences. He has also taken an interest in feminist theories of sex, gender and sexuality, and the relation of that work to the sociology of masculinities, using this approach to reinterpret the 'malestream' canon of classic philosophers. He pursues this range of scholarly activities in an international setting and co-general-edits a book series on Globalization. His books and articles have been translated into German, French, Japanese, Korean and Chinese.

Awards and responsibilities


Since 1995 Carver has been a member of the Editorial Commission of the Marx-Engels Gesamtausgabe. Both in 1995/96 and in 2004/5 he was awarded a University of Bristol Research Fellowship. In 2002/3 he received the Arts and Humanities Research Board Research leave award, and again from the Arts and Humanities Research Council in 2005/6. Carver is also a member of the Political Studies Association Executive Committee. He served as Chair of the Publications Committee (200002), Chair of the Grants & Awards Committee (200305) and as Chair of the External Relations Committee (2005- ).

Books

Karl Marx: Texts on Method (1975) The Logic of Marx (ed.) (1980) Engels (Past Masters) (1981, repr. 1991; Japanese trans. 1989; Korean trans. 2000; reissued as Engels: A Very Short Introduction, 2003) Marxs Social Theory (1982)

Marx and Engels: The Intellectual Relationship (1983; Japanese trans. 1995) Marx and Engels: A Conceptual Concordance (1983) A Marx Dictionary (1987; Japanese trans. 1991) Marxs Grundrisse and Hegels Logic (ed.) (1988; German trans. 1994) Friedrich Engels: His Life and Thought (1989, repr. 1991) Cambridge Companions to Philosophy: Marx (ed.) (1991) Rational Choice Marxism: Assessments (ed.) (1995) Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought: Marx, Later Political Writings (ed.) (1996) Gender is not a Synonym for Woman (1996) Interpreting the Political: New Methodologies (ed.) (1997) The Postmodern Marx (1998) The Politics of Sexuality (ed.) (1998) Engels After Marx (ed.) (1999) Engels: A Very Short Introduction (2003) Men in Political Theory (2004) Palgrave Advances in Continental Political Thought (ed.) (2006) Judith Butler's Precarious Politics: Critical Reflections (ed.) (2008) Political Language and Metaphor: Interpreting and Changing the World (ed.) (2008)) William E. Connolly: Democracy, Pluralism and Political Theory (ed.) (2008)